Skip to comments.How Does Cutting Taxes Increase Cost?
Posted on 07/14/2014 7:45:31 AM PDT by MosesKnows
Did Bush tax cuts cost the U.S. economy $6.6 trillion?
I paid little attention to this headline on Yahoo Finance the other day because it was not a sensible question. Later, it came up in a different venue and I discovered there are people who believe that cutting taxes increase cost. Ill leave it up to you to discover who they are.
Only spending can add cost.
We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
Regardless of what they say, the "rationale" is not rational, it's the rationalization of a socialist, collective ideology.
I can no longer even talk to people I know that regurgitate that socialist vomit.
Politicians and government bureaucrats believe that all of our money belongs to them. Therefore, if they return some of the taxpayer's money they consider that to be an expenditure on their part.
Libs have been using the meme for a few years now that cutting taxes “costs” the government or that Republicans want to “spend” money on tax cuts. The only rationale can be that they assume the govermnent is entitled to everything you make so anything they let you keep is a “cost” or form of spending.
Cutting spending can’t be accused of costing more.
In what passes for “minds” of the average libtard, people retaining more of their own money = government receiving less tax revenue (even though in reality they receive more through increased private economic activity) = more “costs” on the economy. Pure BS, but this unchallenged lie has been repeated so many times over the last few decades the masses just accept it as “fact” (a.k.a. libtard lie).
Since the federal income tax was first enacted in 1913 (the worst year ever for the Republic-—The Federal Reserve System was put into place that year, WW was sworn in as POTUS, and the direct election of US Senators also put into effect) income tax rates have only been significantly reduced on four different times:
1) In the 1920s during the Harding-Coolidge administrations.
2) In the 1960s during the JFK-LBJ administrations.
3) IN the 1908s during the RR Administration.
4) In the 2000s under GWB.
In each and every case without exception after the cuts went into effect:
1) Economic activity picked up.
2) Revenues substantial increased to the US Treasury.
3) Unemployment went down.
4) The stock market went up.
Without fail. Lower tax rates yield higher revenues.
The Lafferists provided the correct analysis of tax cuts back in the 80s (tax cuts given primarily to the wealthy cause the greatest booms in the economy), they were just naive and incorrect on spending (government spending always leads to a net loss in profits).
The only realistic way we can curb spending is to take away the government’s power to print money and control the money supply; whether the gold standard is the best choice, or whether alternative currencies such as Bitcoin are superior, it seems clear that the market should be allowed to choose whatever currency it likes, without fear of government meddling.
All together now: We don’t have a “deficit” problem. We don’t have a “debt” crisis. We have a SPENDING problem.
Cutting taxes increase deficits. Tax cuts decreases revenue, cetainly in the short run. Costs continue to grow, revenue decreases, deficits increase. Congress is willing to cut taxes but will not touch spending.
Only the idiots who believe government is God think that.
It costs nothing to tell taxpayers that they'll be taxed less; costs only increase when you spend more.
It comes from the progressive mindset that all money belongs to the government.
Several responses expressed the same rationale, which is about as well as it can be expressed.
I think the key is the progressive notion that reducing taxes by allowing the wage earner to keep more of what he earned is a gift from the government.